5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is detained in Tver remand centre no. 69/1.
6.  In April 2003 he was taken into custody on suspicion of armed robbery. He was detained in Smolensk remand centre no. 67/1. It appears that the medical record indicated that the applicant had had a brain contusion earlier in the same year.
7.  At 4 p.m. on 20 June 2003 two police officers from the Rudnyanskiy district police station (Rudnya, Smolensk Region) came to the remand centre to take the applicant and his co-defendant Mr P. to the temporary detention centre of the Rudnyanskiy police station, where they were to await the court hearing scheduled for 23 June 2003. According to the register of the temporary detention centre, the applicant had no visible injuries on 20 June 2003.
8.  On arrival at the temporary detention centre officer Sh. told the applicant to go to a cell located across the corridor from the cell where Mr P. had been placed. Apparently, this was intended to prevent any communication between P. and the applicant.
9.  The applicant refused to comply with Sh.'s order because from his previous stay at the detention centre he knew that that cell was only fit for short-term detention. There was no bed or mattress in the cell but only a wooden board.
10.  Officer Sh. then brought in a very tall man in plain clothes. The officers addressed that man as “Dima”. The applicant unsuccessfully tried to explain to “Dima” why he did not want to be kept in the cell in question. Officer Sh. went out but immediately returned with a rubber truncheon and accompanied by three officers. He hit the applicant on his left leg with the truncheon and the applicant collapsed on the floor. Another officer began twisting the applicant's arms; another officer squeezed his scrotum; a third officer strangled him and pulled his head backwards. Sh. and “Dima” both punched him in the face. More blows then followed but the applicant closed his eyes and could not see who dealt them.
11.  The beating lasted for a couple of minutes. The applicant cried out in pain. After they had stopped, another officer in uniform told him to go to the cell. The officer was blond and dumpy and had a golden finger-ring with a black stone. He reeked of alcohol. The applicant told him that he had acted lawlessly because he was drunk. The officer replied that his shift was over and he could allow himself to drink a bit after a hard working day. Then “Dima” intervened and told the officer not to make excuses to the applicant.
12.  A few minutes later a short man entered. The applicant knew that the man worked in the investigations division of the police station. He asked the applicant to explain what had happened. The applicant told him about his refusal to go to a cell without a bed and about the beatings. The man spoke to Sh. and the applicant was put in another cell.
13.  The Government relied on the findings made in the domestic proceedings (see below). In particular they referred to the statements made to their superiors by officers Sh., S., Pon. and Pod. in relation to the use of force against the applicant. Officers Sh. and S. reported that the applicant had grabbed at the officers' uniforms, used coarse language, shouted and threatened to self-inflict injuries; after his failure to comply with verbal orders physical force, a truncheon and handcuffing had been applied. Officers Pon. and Pod. made similar reports affirming that the applicant had shouted, used coarse language, threatened them with violence and grabbed at the officers' uniforms. They also stated that the applicant had hit his face against the floor in order to self-inflict injuries.
14.  On the night of 20 and 21 June 2003 the applicant felt ill and an ambulance was called. According to the medical record, the applicant complained about pain in the [unreadable] area, headache and dizziness. He was diagnosed with “vegetovascular dystonia” and given some medicine.
15.  In the morning of 21 June 2003 the applicant made a complaint about the beatings to the head of the police station and the acting district prosecutor Z. The latter recorded the applicant's deposition (see paragraphs 10 - 12 above) and ordered an inquiry to be carried out by an investigator at the Rudnyanskiy district prosecutor's office.
16.  On the same day, the investigator sought an expert examination of the applicant. The applicant was examined by medical expert G. in the temporary detention centre. It is stated, however, in the written report that the examination had been carried out in a civil hospital. The expert concluded that the applicant had two bruises on the back side of his left thigh (measuring 4.8 x 6.5 cm and 3 x 4.5 cm), a bruise on the right eyelid, bruises on the lips (1 x 2.5 cm, 2 x 2 cm and 2 x 3 cm); and a scratch on a finger on the left hand. The expert concluded that the injuries could have been caused by a hard blunt object or by hitting such an object approximately a day ago. He further stated that it was up to the investigating authority to determine the circumstances in which the injuries had been sustained. Later on the same day, a formal order was issued (see paragraph 24 below) asking G. to identify the injuries (their nature, origin and location), their timing and severity, as well as whether they could have been sustained by a fall to the ground from his own height or have been self-inflicted by a deliberate striking against metal bars or the floor.
17.  At 9.30 a.m. on 22 June 2003 the applicant felt ill again, complaining of an acute headache, and vomited. He was examined by a medical assistant (or an emergency squad). According to the medical record (entry without number) the applicant suffered from arterial hypertension and a vascular crisis.
18.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant and P. were brought to the hearing before the Rudnyanskiy District Court. The applicant had prepared a complaint about the ill-treatment and handed it over to the judge at the preparatory stage of the hearing. He then complained about an acute headache and was sent to the local hospital for examination. The doctors diagnosed cerebral concussion and issued a certificate stating that the applicant was unfit to take part in the hearing.
19.  On 24 June 2003 the applicant was transferred back to the remand centre in Smolensk. He was examined by a medical assistant; a senior officer of the remand centre and Sh. were also present. The medical assistant recorded the presence of blue bruises under the applicant's eyes.
20.  In addition to the investigative measures already taken (paragraphs 15-16 above), the investigator interviewed the officers. In line with their written reports (see paragraph 13 above), they claimed that the applicant had cursed obscenely at them, pulled at their clothing and shouted. They had all put the applicant on the floor and bent his arm behind his back. Sh. had taken out a truncheon and delivered a “relaxing blow” to the applicant's leg. The officers stated that he had threatened that he would accuse the officers of ill-treatment; the applicant had tried to hurt himself, banging his head against the floor and metal bars.
21.  At the closure of the inquiry, by a decision of 24 June 2003 the investigator of the Rudnyanskiy district prosecutor's office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the officers. Having summarised their above statements and the findings of the expert examination, the investigator concluded as follows:
“The medical examination revealed bruises and abrasions on the applicant's face that could have been caused by contact with hard blunt objects. The accessibility of those facial areas and other body parts to [the applicant's] own hands does not exclude the possibility that the injuries could have been [self-inflicted].”
Lastly, the investigator quoted the provisions of the domestic law on the application of physical force to detainees (see paragraph 38 below).
22.  On 25 June 2003 the applicant complained of a headache and dizziness, and was examined by a physician of the remand centre. According to the preliminary findings of the physician, it was possible that the applicant had a closed craniocerebral injury. On 26 June 2003 the applicant was examined by a neurologist in the prison hospital. She confirmed a closed craniocerebral injury/a brain contusion.
23.  The applicant and his lawyer contested the investigator's refusal in court. On 21 August 2003 the Rudnyanskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region granted their complaint, finding as follows:
“... the decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings was given without adequate inquiry into the applicant's complaint and substantially breached the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court has established that the inquiry into the applicant's complaints was incomplete. Other individuals who were detained in the temporary detention centre have not been identified or examined. The scene of the events has not been inspected. Contradictions in testimonies – both in those of the police officers, and in that of the applicant – have not been removed. The decision does not indicate under what circumstances the injuries were caused to the applicant. Nor does it state the ground for refusing to institute criminal proceedings...”
Noting certain other procedural defects in the investigator's decision, the District Court declared it unlawful and not justified and sent the case file back to the prosecutor's office.
24.  The matter was assigned to an assistant prosecutor. On 22 August 2003 he questioned an on-duty officer who had provided officer Sh. with the help from officers Po. and S. The assistant prosecutor also carried out a “crime scene inspection” and questioned expert G. in relation to his report of 21 June 2003. The expert explained that he had examined the applicant and then received the investigator's order concerning the commissioning of an expert report (see paragraph 16 above). The expert confirmed that on 21 June 2003 he had noted bruises on the applicant's face, left thigh and abrasions on his left wrist. Those injuries may have been caused by hard blunt objects.
25.  The assistant prosecutor inferred from the above explanations that the medical expert had corroborated the statements of the police officers, who had legitimately applied physical force to the applicant. On 25 August 2003 the district assistant prosecutor issued a new decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings. It reads as follows:
“The applicant stated that after he had refused to go to a cell the director of the detention centre hit him on his left leg with the truncheon. The applicant collapsed on the floor and other officers punched him in the face (on his head) and strangled him. He could not see who did what because his head was pulled backwards. All that time he was holding on to metal bars. He was then put on the ground. Someone twisted his arms and handcuffed him. Thereafter, the applicant had a headache and was examined by paramedics.
It follows from the medical report that the applicant had bruises on his face and left thigh, a scratch on the left hand. These injuries do not amount to health damage. The applicant's allegations are refuted by other evidence.
Officers Sh., S., Pon., Pod. and Zh. stated that Sh. had warned the applicant that physical force and constraints could be applied against him if he maintained his refusal to obey the lawful order. Instead, the applicant uttered threats of self-harm, used course language and grabbed the officers' uniforms. Sh. inflicted one relaxing blow to the applicant's thigh. The applicant started to hit himself against the ground and metal bars. Sh. and Pod., as well the other officers, who had then arrived at the premises, put the applicant on the ground, twisted his arms, handcuffed him and put in a cell. The officers made written reports.
Under the Police Act, their statements should be examined together with all other factual information. The medical expert indicated that a bruise on the left thigh was caused by contact with a blunt object. The other injuries could be inflicted by a blow or contact with a blunt object. Thus, the injuries on the applicant's head and face could be caused in the circumstances described by the officers. In view of the conclusive and coherent nature of their statements, it should be concluded that the officers' actions were lawful.”
26.  On 10 September 2003 the Rudnyanskiy district prosecutor reviewed that decision and confirmed that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified in the circumstances of the case. It stated as follows:
“Physical force and constraints were used against the applicant. The legal grounds and limits for their use were respected. The criminal inquiry had been carried out effectively and established the relevant factual and legal matters.”
27.  The applicant again complained to the court. On 27 November 2003 the Rudnyanskiy District Court rejected his complaint, finding as follows:
“The court has not established any breaches of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the conduct of the inquiry. The inquiry was comprehensive. All witnesses have been examined and their statements analysed in the decision. The lawfulness of the application of physical force to the applicant has been evaluated. The decision contains grounds for refusing to institute criminal proceedings. The grounds are corroborated with specific evidence: testimony by witnesses and written materials. The defects referred to in the District Court's judgment of 21 August 2003 have been removed.”
The District Court found that the decision of 25 August 2003 was lawful.
28.  Apparently, on 22 December 2003 the applicant submitted his statement of appeal against the judgment of 27 November 2003 to the correspondence unit of remand centre no. 67/1 for dispatch. It was recorded under no. Ф-108 in the outgoing correspondence log. By letter of 15 April 2004, the President of the Rudnyanskiy District Court informed the applicant that no statement of appeal had arrived at the registry of that court and that no appeal against the judgment of 27 November 2003 had been examined by the Smolensk Regional Court. Thus, this judgment was final.
29.  While the inquiry had thus been completed in 2003, in 2007 the deputy prosecutor of the Smolensk Region considered that the district assistant prosecutor had not been competent to issue the decision of 25 August 2003, and that he had not taken full account of the available medical evidence, in particular the medical examinations of the applicant on 23-26 June 2003 (see paragraphs 14, 17-19 and 22 above).
30.  On 17 May 2007 the Rydnyansky district prosecutor's office issued a new decision not to initiate criminal proceedings. The district prosecutor relied on a medical report issued on the same day on the basis of an assessment of the case file. Apparently, the medical expert concluded that bruises on the applicant's face and left hip and scratches on the left wrist had been caused one day before the initial examination of the applicant, and that the subsequent indications concerning a possible brain contusion were not “confirmed by clinical data and thus could not be a subject-matter of an expert assessment”. With reference to the report, the prosecutor considered that the head injuries could have been caused in the circumstances described by the officers.
31.  On 17 December 2007 the deputy regional prosecutor annulled this decision, considering that the applicant should have been warned about criminal liability for false denunciation and that the lower prosecutor should have decided whether it was necessary to prosecute the applicant.
32.  On 8 April 2010 an investigator in the Demidovskiy Investigations Unit of the Regional Prosecutor's Office issued a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings against any public official. The investigator considered that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful under the Custody Act (see paragraph 38 below) and did not constitute a criminal offence under Articles 285 or 286 of the Criminal Code concerning abuse or excessive use of power respectively. The investigator held as follows:
“As was established during the inquiry,...after the applicant had refused to go to cell no. 2, Mr Sh. warned him several times that his refusal to comply with the order could lead to the use of restraint or physical force against him. The applicant did not react to the warning; he threatened to self-inflict injuries, used coarse language against the officers and touched their uniforms... Mr Sh. called more officers to help him and dealt a relaxation blow with a rubber truncheon to the applicant's hip. The applicant then started to intentionally hit his head against the floor and metal bars. Mr Sh. and others held the applicant down on the floor, handcuffed his hands behind his back and put him in the cell. The officers made their reports...The above-mentioned circumstances are confirmed by the medical report of 17 May 2007, which disclosed injuries of a mechanical nature that could have been caused in the circumstances described ...The use of restraint and physical force was lawful and does not disclose elements of offences under Article 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code ...”
33.  The applicant was charged with several counts of armed robbery. As established by the national authorities, in April 2003 on their way from Vitebsk to Moscow the applicant, P. and his girlfriend Sch. stopped to see acquaintances of P.. While Sch. stayed sleeping in the car, the applicant accompanied P. to the acquaintances' house. During a quarrel which had broken out among them, the applicant ordered one of the victims to hand over to him a diamond ring, threatening him with a gun. When leaving the house he also picked up the telephone set.
34.  The applicant pleaded that he had been in a different place on the relevant date. He alleged that he had received the ring from Sch. to sell but had then returned it to its owner.
35.  During a pre-trial police line-up the victims identified the applicant as their assailant. Sch. stated to the investigator that on his return from the victims' home P. had told her about the quarrel and she had seen a telephone set in the car. She confirmed that P. and the applicant had not had any common purpose in going to the victims' house. Apparently, she confirmed her deposition at a face-to-face confrontation with the applicant. Sch. refused to come to the trial, referring to her residence in Belarus and her state of health.
36.  P. stated at the trial that after he had left the house the applicant had remained inside. The applicant's girlfriend stated that she knew that the applicant had accompanied P. on the relevant date and that the applicant had later on asked her to return the ring to the victim. The trial court also heard witnesses on the applicant's behalf and dismissed their testimonies as contradictory and unreliable. With reference to Sch.'s pre-trial statement, the court rejected the prosecution's submission that the defendants had acted in concert to commit robbery.
37.  On 16 October 2003 the Rudnyanskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment. On 16 December 2003 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment in substance.